: Tornado Fuel Saver



Cad Dad
01-04-04, 03:19 PM
Has anyone installed the TORNADO FUEL SAVER? According to all the web surfing I have done the results appear to be favorable in both performance and gas mileage improvement. Of course the best testimonials to me would be from fellow Cadillac enthusiasts from this forum. Any comments would be appreciated. If you're not familiar with this item here's a link to refer to the specs http://www.autostreak.com/tornado/

ellisss
01-04-04, 04:33 PM
While I have never used one, the theory behind it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Initially, a mere straightening of the incoming air charge was thought to be highly desireable. You may remember the metal mesh air straighteners that GM used on it's C3 carburated vehicles in the late-80's.

Adding a rotationally-tweaked air charge to the intake can only add benefits. When air and fuel are more efficiently mixed together, there is a definite boos in the efficiency of combustion.

Is it worth the money? I dunno... you decide. Bring the car into a dealer for a warranty engine or trans repair with the Tornado installed... see what they tell you about your now voided warranty. :crying2:

--
Ellisss

BUILDINGCTSAMG
01-04-04, 04:38 PM
THis has been posted before with almost everyone agreeing that it is a skam.....your better off getting a k&n and getting real results....but if u wanna install it and dyno it you can tell us if we are all wrong....

ellisss
01-04-04, 04:46 PM
I disagree, but then again I'm just a newbie. :halo:

K&N filters offer a single advantage, that being a lower restriction against the incoming air. This does indeed have an advantage. It is, however, a completely different kind of advantage than a device designed to add a rotational force to the incoming air charge.

Like I said, the theory behind rotational charges added to incoming air have been proven beyond doubt.

Also, like I said, it may not be worth the cost (I don't know how much) or the risk to a new car's warranty.

Take it or leave it. ::shrug::

--
Ellisss

cn2800
01-04-04, 04:59 PM
I am typically leery of such devices. Their claims of fuel economy improvement are suspect at best. Their explanation of how the 'Tornado' works seems bogus, as well. I am a graduate mechanical engineer who concentrated on fluid dynamics and fluid mechanics as an undergraduate and worked on burner design after grad school. Here are a few things to consider:

Turbulent air does not move faster around bends and corners in tubing. Turbulence is the enemy of efficient fluid flow in tubes. (Liquids and gasses are both considered fluids.)

The claim of better fuel atomization seems false, since most modern automobiles have the fuel injected almost directly above the intake valve(s). The atomization of the fuel is caused by the injector orifice and the pressure of the liquid fuel behind it. On a carburetted vehicle, turbulent flow might affect the vaporization (evaporation) of the fuel in a positive way, but only beyond the carburettor.

Here's the part that gets a bit technical. I don't see how the tornado device could possibly affect the turbulence of the airflow beyond the car's intake tube (the part of the intake system furthest upstream). Here's why:

All fuel injected vehicles (including those with throttle body fuel injection) rely on a device called a mass airflow sensor to 'tell' the computer how much air is flowing through the air intake. This sensor is basically a little resistor wire which heats up as electricity flows through it, and a thermocouple, which is a bi-metallic circuit that generates a varying voltage output depending on temperature. These two devices are encased together in a little ceramic disc about the size of a match head. The engine control computer keeps the disc at a constant temperature by varying the amount of electricity flowing through the resistor wire, and monitors the temperature of the disc by monitoring the voltage signal from the thermocouple.

The faster the air moves past this disc, the more quickly it cools off, and more electricity must be sent through the resistor wire to keep the disc at a constant temperature.

The rate at which heat dissipates from the disc at specific air flow rates is stored in the computer. For any given rate of heat dissipation (which the computer knows based on how much juice it has to send to the resistor wire) the computer is able to calculate how fast the air is moving through the intake tube.

Since the diameter of the intake tube is constant, the computer can then calculate the mass (or amount) of air flowing through the intake tube at any given time, and adjust the fuel flow rate accordingly, for optimum power and efficency.

In order for all that to happen with any accuracy, the airflow past the disc cannot be turbulent (the turbulent air would cause constant fluctuations in the output of the sensor). To that end, the sensor is located inside a honeycomb matrix made out of thin plastic (imagine bundling a bunch of drinking straws together) which 'straighten out' the airflow.

Because this honeycomb would be located downstream from the tornado device, any turbulence introduced to the airflow would be negated by the mass airflow sensor assembly.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but I don't think the thing would work at all.

ellisss
01-04-04, 05:39 PM
...Sorry for the long-windedness, but I don't think the thing would work at all.
Not such a long-winded post... but not entirely accurate, either. :bonkers:

First, the MAF is a hot-wire based frequency generator. No disc is involved.

Second, it's a given that turbulent air charges don't move around a corner faster (duh?). An air charge with a rotational component to it will definitely burn more efficiently than one without... and that is regardless of the injector's proximity to the intake valve.

Third, the device in question would be located (as far as I know) downstream of the MAF.

Fourth, the PCM's software has a correction factor/function that takes into account turbulence induced by varying road conditions (which should be known by someone with your education)

What about the vehicles that didn't use speed-density based software, and hence had no MAF sensors? Weren't you aware that MAP sensors, in some applications, supplied the numbers for the calculations done by the PCM?

Fifth, on all late-model GM port fuel injected vehicles... the MAF sensor isn't at all responsible for fuel injector pulsewidth. It is the upstream oxygen sensors that, by reading a per-bank exhaust gas oxygen content, motivate the PCM to adjust both fuel trim (long and short) and injector pulsewidth. Injectors are adjusted on-the-fly by O2 sensor signals mostly. MAF signal accounts for maybe 25% of the adjustment, and that is only after the vehicle is at operating temperature.

I am extremely aware of the design of a Northstar's intake runners and combustion chamber. It's more-or-less a straight-shot after the circular intake plenum. A rotationally assisted intake air charge will, without any doubt, have a positive effect.

Will the advantage be nominal or drastic? I don't know. Is the benefit(s) worth the risk of warranty loss? I doubt it.

--
Ellisss

cn2800
01-04-04, 06:06 PM
That's excellent information. I did not know the O2 sensors were the primary source of data for determining mixture.

You are correct in stating that a turbulent cylinder charge will burn much more efficiently. Perhaps the gist of what I am saying is that I do not see how introducing turbulence to the intake air so far upstream of the cylinder could have such a drastic effect as what is claimed on the tornado website.

Isn't the idea behind polished and tuned intake runners to minimize the amount of drag/turbulence in the incoming air while maximizing the pressure of the air in the intake runners? It seems to me that the tornado would simultaneously introduce turbulence and disrupt the natural pressure waves to which the intake was so laborously tuned by GM engineers.

Additionally, if such an inexpensive device with no moving parts could have such a dramatic effect on performance and efficency, why would the automobile not come with one? (Maybe that's the real question...)

ellisss
01-04-04, 06:51 PM
That's excellent information. I did not know the O2 sensors were the primary source of data for determining mixture.
On a closed-loop (feedback) system, the upstream O2 sensor has always been the head-honcho.

Downstream O2 sensors, (those located after the catalytic converter(s)), are in no way responsible for anything except catalyist efficiency testing. Catalytic converters modify many aspects of exhaust gas. For instance, carbon monoxide molecules get an additional atom of oxygen, and that comes from any free O2 present. When the amount of O2 for a given volume of gas is changed (CO becomes CO2 using freely available O2), and then that same volume of gas passes by the downstream O2 sensor, the O2 sensor signal (again, for that same volume of exhaust gas) changes when compared to the upstream sensor's signal. This is how the PCM determines the efficiency of the catalyst.

(note: On any car sold in America after 1994, the catalytic converter and PCM are covered by a governmentally mandated 8 year/80,000 mile warranty. If the catalyst or PCM fail within 8yr/80K miles... you get a replacement for free. This is the primary motivation for the downstram O2 sensors. Uncle Sam said they (the manufacturers) were obligated to implement a reliable way to qualify catalyst efficiency).


I do not see how introducing turbulence to the intake air so far upstream of the cylinder could have such a drastic effect as what is claimed on the tornado website.

As far as the amount of increaded volumetric efficiency, that would be dependant on overall intake and exhaust design, among other variables. I tend to agree that on a Northstar, the amount would (or might?) be negligable.

Do not confuse turbulence with cyclonic or rotational force. Turbulance is chaotic, while cyclonic (rotational) force is not. Turbulence is a bad thing, and if you remember the C3 (carburated) GM feedback system... they all had air straighteners to remove turbulence from the incoming air charge.


Isn't the idea behind polished and tuned intake runners to minimize the amount of drag/turbulence in the incoming air while maximizing the pressure of the air in the intake runners?

Yes. If you can visualize a tuned runner as opposed to one that isn't tuned... the tuned runner will -allow- rotational forces to propogate further into the runner. A runner that isn't tuned, and has rough surfaces or poorly designed flow characteristics, will offer resistance to non-chaotic rotational flow and actually increase turbulence. (remember, turbulence equals bad... and cyclonic or rotational equals good.)


It seems to me that the tornado would simultaneously introduce turbulence and disrupt the natural pressure waves to which the intake was so laborously tuned by GM engineers.

The Tornado (I'm assuming) is either a machined or stamped piece of metal with smooth surfaces. What gets added to the incoming charge is a twist... rotation... cyclonic force... not turbulence.

You should know the difference between rotational forces in fluids as opposed to those in gases. I won't remind you, but think of the spaces between molecules and what is present there... and the effect that would have on the propogation of both turbulence and rotational force.


... if such an inexpensive device with no moving parts could have such a dramatic effect on performance and efficency, why would the automobile not come with one? (Maybe that's the real question...)

Aye... there's the rub. :D

The MAF sensor straightens and calms part of the air that it accepts (the part that passes over the hot wire).

Possibly the engineers at GM don't feel the benefits are enough to affect a distinct difference in volumetric efficiency.

:annoyed: A note about GM engineers here. It was deemed un-necessary to solder the connections on low voltage data lines that enter the ABS module. Go ask any Cadillac technician how many ABS harnesses he's had to modify by adding solder to the data lines... and then wonder why the engineers, who probably make upwards of 200K/year, didn't think it was necessary.

:banghead:

--
Ellisss

twmon
01-04-04, 07:18 PM
THIS DEVICE HAS BEEN TESTED ON NATIONAL TV(NEWS 4)ON A PROGRAM CALLED ASK LIZ. SHE TEST ALOT OF THINGS THAT COME OUT ON TV. ALL THE CAR MECHS. AND SPECIALIST THAT TESTED THIS DEVICE FOR HER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS BULL. IT DIDNT DO ANYTHING ON THE DYNO AND YO COULDNT FEEL ANY DIFF. IN THE RIDE ON THE ROAD TEST. IT DIDNT EVEN GIVE BETTER GAS MILES.SO BUY ONE IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IT AND LET ME KNOW WHAT IT DOES FOR YOU.

BUILDINGCTSAMG
01-04-04, 07:18 PM
Ok if anyone knows someone who can hook me up with free dyno runs i will buy them and try it.....i live in ga and dc

ellisss
01-04-04, 07:29 PM
For twmon.

(snipped all-caps reply)

1. It is considered rude to post in all caps. You don't need to yell, I'm right here. :halo:

2. 'Ask Liz' is archived on the Internet. Using Google's search, I could not locate any of Liz's pages referencing the Tornado device.

3. It is always best to provide a link to an article that you are using to refute someone else's statments. Without such, all I have to go on is your poor grammar. :cookoo:

4. I really don't care what you, or any other person who doesn't have appropriate experience in the field has to say on it. I'm saying that the theory behind the device has been proven. I don't say that I use it, nor do I say that you or anyone else should.

5. What works on one car's design, may not work (or may not work as well) on another. Whether or not this is a factor in the company's propoganda ian't something I'm concerned with.

If you aren't liking my professional opinion on it, then that is perfectly fine.

:)

--
Ellisss

twmon
01-04-04, 08:09 PM
Awww, Are we upset?:crying2:

First of all I'm yelling *bleeep* :cookoo:

Not once did I say Liz was in print. I said it was on TV!

And as far as you not caring what people think...

Why are you in a forum?:histeric:



(ShadowLvr) I edited this because it was rude, offensive, and contributed nearly nothing to the discussion. Keep it civil please sir.


*bleep* :histeric:

ellisss
01-04-04, 08:24 PM
(more childish yelling snipped)
Yes, you are correct. I'm both deaf and dumb. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. :halo:

As far as 'Ask Liz' goes... each and every one of her articles (print and broadcast) has a corresponding page on the internet. I understand that it may not be within your grasp to find out about these things... so that's why I'm here.

Hey, why are you so concerned with my butt? If you're cruising for an online romance... sorry, I don't swing that way. May I suggest the following?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=homosexual+car+buffs

--
Ellisss

Allante North *
01-04-04, 08:31 PM
Boys now we'll have none of that. No Flame wars in my sections if you please or I'll have to stick both of you in "time out".

twmon,

you will need to turn of the caps as we all feel it to be rude and I'm not deaf, blind, or dumb. Relax a bit and welcome to the forums. :welcome:

ellisss,

This is not an English class and no one will be graded on spelling, least of all me. Most of the members here have trouble with grammar and spelling.

Lets RELAX and try to answer the mans question as best we can.


I have tried the Tornado and can't say I would tell you to rush out and buy one. I tried runs at the strip with and without and the runs with it in were a little better. Does that mean that it works? I can't say for sure, but I don't see it hurting anything either. You will get opinions from people who say its jusk and from those that say it saves fuel and increases power. I'm going to ride the fence on this one and say I tried it and doubt I would spend the bucks again. If you want performance you should look for it in a good exhaust system, K&N filter, or head work and cams if you have the bucks.

Just my two cents worth on this subject.

No we can either resume the discussion or I can close this thread.

ellisss
01-04-04, 08:41 PM
Lets RELAX and try to answer the mans question as best we can.
I thought that's exactly what I did. :annoyed:

I see that your astute, well-worded answer not only answers his question, but also gives merit to what I said on the device.

Thank you.

--
Ellisss

airbalancer
01-04-04, 09:16 PM
Hey cn2800, I am air & water balancer and your a mech Peng
I guess just because we work with duct static presure and head presure what would we know about air flow.
Sometimes no believes a Peng at all untill they get into trouble with their know design.
This Tornado Fuel Saver only makes money for a the dealer!
I guess if I could sell a 1 mil of these and only make a $1 profit that would be OK in my books.

twmon
01-04-04, 09:26 PM
ellisss, that last thing you said about your butt was funny!!!!!!!

i was just messin around with you. my first post wasn't meant to be smart or rude.

sorry it sounded that way. after your reply, I had to come back with something.

no hard feelings i hope. I couldnt find it on ask liz myself.

ShadowLvr400
01-04-04, 09:57 PM
Ok, to my shame, I'll admit I tried the thing. I could feel the difference on the first drive. The car had a LOT LESS step. I lost about 10 mph on the onramp with that crap. Mileage went down too. Lost 2 mpg. The tornado is total crap fo a FI motor. They might help on an old carbed motor, but as for their Northstar application, save your money. They suck.

Cad Dad
01-04-04, 10:41 PM
Wow the response to my query is impressive and very appreciated. I personally would deduce this gizmo to not be of a benefit to the Northstar setup and would concur that an older carbureted system would make better use of the altered airflow. This is only my personal take on the feedback. I thank all of you so much for your insights and have decided to pass on this being introduced to my engine compartment. To Elliss & cn2800, your comments and individual experiences and credentials really were spectacular to read.


Ok, to my shame, I'll admit I tried the thing. I could feel the difference on the first drive. The car had a LOT LESS step. I lost about 10 mph on the onramp with that crap. Mileage went down too. Lost 2 mpg. The tornado is total crap fo a FI motor. They might help on an old carbed motor, but as for their Northstar application, save your money. They suck.

ellisss
01-04-04, 11:06 PM
Congradulations, Cad Dad. You posed a question, and then read the replies with an open mind... and finally made a decision based on those replies.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that your decision not to use the device in question will in no way be detrimental.

Top engine in the Northstar, from the throttle body to the combustion chamber, is a highly tweaked and excellent performing system. The shape of the intake manifold, the layout of the intake valves, and the design of the combustion chamber are all geared towards performance and efficiency.

Thank you for the kind words, also. :D

--
Ellisss

ShadowLvr400
01-05-04, 12:31 AM
Oh, hey Cad Dad, if you really want to try it, I'll sell you mine at half price or so. :D I'm not using it, so if you really want to try it, who knows, you might have better luck than me. Mine is a 97 Eldorado.

Gary00SLS
01-07-04, 02:10 PM
Do I feel a group hug comming on?

This is my first Cad; the 2000 SLS. I must say that I remain overly impressed with the performance and response, power and luxury of this automobile. Who can argue with 20+ mpg from a V-8?

Interesting reading material, also

STS_spinnin
01-07-04, 06:51 PM
i bought one for my 99 sts but when i felt it and looked at it, decided not to put it in, bought for i think 40 or 50 dollars, anyone that wants it can e-mail me, nthn2aboss@yahoo.com. 20 dollars and it is yours

kcnewell
01-07-04, 10:41 PM
These things have long been known to be less than useless.....The therory of getting the air moving is quite sound and does by my experience work well when done correctly. The circular movement of the air improves ionization and therefore improves combustion. The theroy is correct....This particular method of implementation is badly flawed.

BeelzeBob
01-13-04, 12:34 AM
The tornado is a pure scam. I have seen engine dyno tests and it hurts power.

Engine modifications to make more power are generally aimed at increasing the air flow thru the engine. How can putting something that causes a restriction in the inlet help power. BS.

At part throttle operation (99% of normal operation of the engine...and the mode the engine is in when fuel economy is a consideration) the throttle blades are virtually closed...barely open at best. How exacty is this swirling turbulent tornado generated upstream of the throttle blade going to make it past the nearly closed blade?? Trust me...it won't.

With an engine like the Northstar (and virtually all modern fuel injected engines) the intake manifold is highly tuned with individual runners going to each cylinder that are 24 inches long. Now how is that "tornado" of swirling air (assuming it made it past the throttle blade) going to decide which of the runners to go down....and will it still be a tornado after twirling down that long tuned intake runner...and does it just jump to the next runner in the firing order. Not likely.....

The only thing the tornado was designed to do was to put your money in the inventor's pocket.

nostickgolf
02-17-04, 02:19 PM
Just accidently found this forum while investigating the Tornado device for a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I wish I could afford a Caddy Northstar but I'll have just to pass this forum on to my brother who plays in your league.

My two cents is that I've decided to pass on the purchase of this device for now! Thanks for the discussion. Particular thanks to Ellisss for the time and effort.

As a former college golf coach and teaching pro, I've tried to lend some expertise to discussions on some golf forums ... and got slammed in that opinion soaked world. Golfers can get pretty worked up, but you guys (and gals) have your own brand of salsa:want:. Again thanks for the help.



Wow the response to my query is impressive and very appreciated. I personally would deduce this gizmo to not be of a benefit to the Northstar setup and would concur that an older carbureted system would make better use of the altered airflow. This is only my personal take on the feedback. I thank all of you so much for your insights and have decided to pass on this being introduced to my engine compartment. To Elliss & cn2800, your comments and individual experiences and credentials really were spectacular to read.

arturo_mendoza27
02-04-05, 05:35 PM
I have used the Tornado Fuel Saver, but I've found another device that seems to work really well too called Petro-Mag. I've been looking for a fuel saver forever, and tried tons of fuel savers both magnetic, cyclonic, etc and actually found the best results using the Tornado Fuel Saver with the Petro-Mag (www.petro-mag.com (http://www.petro-mag.com)) or (www.petro-mag.com/fuel-saver.html (http://www.petro-mag.com/fuel-saver.html))

I have gone from 17 mpg to over 24 mpg on the highway using them both together. The Petro-Mag unit is about $50 and the Tornado Fuel Saver is about $80 from what i've found.

Good Luck in saving fuel!

Arturo

mcowden
02-04-05, 05:51 PM
Yeah, whatever, Arturo. You're an idiot. If you want to advertise your junk, pay for links on Google and keep your crap out of here. Moderator, you're going to get rid of that, right?

dkozloski
02-04-05, 05:53 PM
On my 1928 Oakland I'm using the "Platinum Gas Saver", the "Tornado", the "Gas line Magnets", the "Fish Carburetor", the "Intake Cyclone", and lubricating the engine with "Duck Butter". I have to drain the gas tank twice a week and it is really getting to be a pain. The first lier doesn't have a chance. I gave up on the Slick 50 after I found out it was reclaimed crankcase drainings and ground-up scrap plastic. Wait, I forgot the "Electronic Supercharger".

Ranger
02-04-05, 06:07 PM
I have used the Tornado Fuel Saver, but I've found another device that seems to work really well too called Petro-Mag. I've been looking for a fuel saver forever, and tried tons of fuel savers both magnetic, cyclonic, etc and actually found the best results using the Tornado Fuel Saver with the Petro-Mag (www.petro-mag.com (http://www.petro-mag.com)) or (www.petro-mag.com/fuel-saver.html (http://www.petro-mag.com/fuel-saver.html))

I have gone from 17 mpg to over 24 mpg on the highway using them both together. The Petro-Mag unit is about $50 and the Tornado Fuel Saver is about $80 from what i've found.

Good Luck in saving fuel!

Arturo\
P.T. Barnum was right after all. There IS a sucker born every minute. :histeric:

dkozloski
02-04-05, 06:18 PM
It's hard for me to believe that in this day and age there is still a market for the fuel saver scams. Some of this stuff has been around for 75 or more years and the suckers still bite. Springtime is the season for this stuff because your milage improves anyway as the weather warms up so the con man might as well take credit. The part I really enjoy is the admonition that it's going to take a week or two for this thing to "kick-in". Time to get out of town ahead of the angry mob. I still remember the comment one engineer made after the "device" was described to him. "That's the most rediculous Goddam thing I ever heard".